IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [pcp] DESCRIPTION Option

<mohamed.boucadair@orange.com> Tue, 18 September 2012 06:34 UTC

Return-Path: <mohamed.boucadair@orange.com>
X-Original-To: pcp@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: pcp@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4932821E80B9 for <pcp@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 17 Sep 2012 23:34:12 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.173
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.173 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.074, BAYES_00=-2.599, HELO_EQ_FR=0.35, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, UNPARSEABLE_RELAY=0.001]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id tVrYntiGy6Om for <pcp@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 17 Sep 2012 23:34:11 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from relais-inet.francetelecom.com (relais-ias91.francetelecom.com [193.251.215.91]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5929521F8518 for <pcp@ietf.org>; Mon, 17 Sep 2012 23:34:11 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from omfedm08.si.francetelecom.fr (unknown [xx.xx.xx.4]) by omfedm14.si.francetelecom.fr (ESMTP service) with ESMTP id 8990822C4D7 for <pcp@ietf.org>; Tue, 18 Sep 2012 08:34:10 +0200 (CEST)
Received: from PUEXCH41.nanterre.francetelecom.fr (unknown [10.101.44.30]) by omfedm08.si.francetelecom.fr (ESMTP service) with ESMTP id 6704D2380E9 for <pcp@ietf.org>; Tue, 18 Sep 2012 08:34:10 +0200 (CEST)
Received: from PUEXCB1B.nanterre.francetelecom.fr ([10.101.44.9]) by PUEXCH41.nanterre.francetelecom.fr ([10.101.44.30]) with mapi; Tue, 18 Sep 2012 08:34:10 +0200
From: mohamed.boucadair@orange.com
To: "pcp@ietf.org" <pcp@ietf.org>
Date: Tue, 18 Sep 2012 08:34:08 +0200
Thread-Topic: DESCRIPTION Option
Thread-Index: Ac2Ux1m008btMKN5TYGgLLdL5dq1ewAoBkhw
Message-ID: <94C682931C08B048B7A8645303FDC9F36E5A40CD5B@PUEXCB1B.nanterre.francetelecom.fr>
References: <94C682931C08B048B7A8645303FDC9F36E5A40CB0E@PUEXCB1B.nanterre.francetelecom.fr>
In-Reply-To: <94C682931C08B048B7A8645303FDC9F36E5A40CB0E@PUEXCB1B.nanterre.francetelecom.fr>
Accept-Language: fr-FR
Content-Language: fr-FR
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
acceptlanguage: fr-FR
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="_000_94C682931C08B048B7A8645303FDC9F36E5A40CD5BPUEXCB1Bnante_"
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-PMX-Version: 5.6.1.2065439, Antispam-Engine: 2.7.2.376379, Antispam-Data: 2012.9.18.55414
Subject: Re: [pcp] DESCRIPTION Option
X-BeenThere: pcp@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
Precedence: list
List-Id: PCP wg discussion list <pcp.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/pcp>, <mailto:pcp-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/pcp>
List-Post: <mailto:pcp@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:pcp-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/pcp>, <mailto:pcp-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 18 Sep 2012 06:34:12 -0000

Re-,

I updated the text to include some of the comments I received off line.

The new version is available at: http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-boucadair-pcp-description-option-01

FWIW, a diff is also available here: http://www.ietf.org/rfcdiff?url2=draft-boucadair-pcp-description-option-01

Cheers,
Med

________________________________
De : pcp-bounces@ietf.org [mailto:pcp-bounces@ietf.org] De la part de mohamed.boucadair@orange.com
Envoyé : lundi 17 septembre 2012 13:27
À : pcp@ietf.org
Objet : [pcp] DESCRIPTION Option

Dear all,

In the Paris meeting (http://www.ietf.org/proceedings/83/minutes/minutes-83-pcp.txt), there was a suggestion to start discussion on the options defined in draft-boucadair-pcp-extensions. I will start the discussion with two options from that draft: DESCRIPTION and CAPABILITY Options. I will send a separate e-mail for the CAPABILITY Option.

This message is to initiate discussion on DESCRIPTION Option:

 http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-boucadair-pcp-description-option-00

The document indicates the code used for this option by implementations I'm aware of.

Comments on the DESCRIPTION option are more than welcome.

If you think the working group should spent or no effort on this specification, this is also a useful comment.

Cheers,
Med

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email